Court says prosecution failed to prove compliance with sampling rules under the Prevention of Food Adulteration regime; no interference warranted with trial court’s acquittal.
The Gujarat High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and upheld the acquittal of a dairy owner accused of selling adulterated ghee, holding that the prosecution failed to follow mandatory sampling procedures under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.
Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak, deciding Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2013, affirmed the trial court’s order dated July 20, 2012, which had acquitted the accused in a case arising from a 2010 inspection at Ambika Dairy Farm in Ahmedabad. The Food Inspector had allegedly purchased 600 grams of ghee from the premises, and subsequent reports from the Public Analyst and the Central Food Laboratory indicated that the sample did not conform to prescribed standards. The reports noted positive rancidity and a fatty acid profile not similar to ghee.
However, the High Court found that the prosecution witnesses themselves admitted that the mandatory procedure for drawing a sample of pure ghee was not followed. The Court specifically noted that there was no evidence to show that the ghee container had been properly heated before sampling, as required under the applicable rules. In the absence of strict compliance with Rules 14 and 4(4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, the prosecution was held to be vitiated.
The Court observed that in cases involving acquittal, appellate interference is limited because the accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence. Relying on settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, the High Court reiterated that if two reasonable views are possible, the appellate court should not disturb an acquittal unless the trial court’s findings are perverse or manifestly illegal.
Justice Prachchhak held that the trial court had rightly appreciated the evidence and that no illegality, perversity, or infirmity was shown in the acquittal order. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, the acquittal was confirmed, and the bail bond was cancelled.
The judgment reinforces the principle that in food adulteration prosecutions, scientific reports alone are not enough if the statutory sampling procedure is not strictly followed. The Court made it clear that mandatory safeguards under the rules are essential to sustain a conviction.
Bottom Line :
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Appeal against acquittal - Sample of ghee alleged to be adulterated - Non-compliance of mandatory procedure under Rules 14 and 4(4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 in drawing sample vitiates prosecution - In absence of evidence that ghee was properly heated and sampled as prescribed, acquittal calls for no interference.
Statutory provision(s): Section 7(1), Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Rules 14 and 4(4) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Lalji Ishwardas Patel, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc id # 2982595
